W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2012

Re: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards An alternative approach

From: Conor Dowling <conor-dowling@caregraf.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:34:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CALfFB1-JYf5TCkcKpZK6e0nxA1N+8absF0jPdoqU0W=LF+MzuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter.Hendler@kp.org
Cc: david@dbooth.org, helena.deus@deri.org, kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com, LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu, meadch@mail.nih.gov, mscottmarshall@gmail.com, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, ratnesh.sahay@deri.org
Peter,

how does Kaiser decide what level of coordination to use? Let me take
RxNORM - do you use that for drugs? - does your OO/model record dosage,
route etc or is that coordinated in the "what"? For SNOMED, do you stay
clear of coordinated allergies (Allergic to Strawberries") and use two
model fields 'Allergy' and (substance = strawberry) or do you use as much
SNOMED coordination as you can? I suppose I'm asking, for each concept
scheme, does Kaiser have a "profile" where you decide on coordination vs
what's in the "model"?

I had to do a lot of CCD stuff last year (opinion: a big messed up, going
no-where hack) where the split of "model"/xml tags and terminologies/codes
was never set and so you can lean on a terminology or the "model"/xml tags (see
post <http://www.caregraf.com/blog/so-much-choice-through-meaningful-use>).
This is where I see the value in the split of concept scheme and clinical
care vocabulary. It's not closed/open per se but in guidance or at least
explicit recognition of multiple choices for expression beyond the obvious
who-where-when.

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:12 AM, <Peter.Hendler@kp.org> wrote:

> My answer is not that there is anything intrinsically special about "what"
> vs the when why how etc.
>
> It is just based on what we actually do, and how SNOMED is. SNOMED is very
> good in the "what" of clinical models.
>
> On the one hand we're talking about all the possible things you could do,
> and on the other hand, the main real thing we really do is use SNOMED for
> "what".
>
> SNOMED is very strong in "Clinical Findings, Diseases, Observables,
> Procedures"  so those pre existing SNOMED hierarchies are in general "what"
> things.
>
>
>
>
> *NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:*  If you are not the intended recipient of this
> e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or
> disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please
> notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this
> e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.
>  Thank you.
>
>
>
>  *Conor Dowling <conor-dowling@caregraf.com>*
>
> 08/21/2012 11:54 PM
>   To
> David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> cc
> Peter Hendler/CA/KAIPERM@KAIPERM, helena.deus@deri.org,
> kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com, LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu,
> meadch@mail.nih.gov, mscottmarshall@gmail.com,
> public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, ratnesh.sahay@deri.org
> Subject
> Re: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards An alternative approach
>
>
>
>
> apologies if this is a tangent but why is what's identified as
> "extensional" particular to health-care? "Who" said/observed/found/acted
> "What", "When" and "Where" is surely a general notion. Does it need a
> health-care model or ontology? Yes, particular findings or observations or
> procedures can be of health but also of finance, indeed of most of
> life. "Constantine boiled his wife in 326" talks of who, what and when.
>
> Does Health-care need its own (closed-world) model for "observation"
> ("kill method" == "boil") vs "finding" ("was the boiler") or "procedure"
> ("dunk and hold down"). Just as we should avoid our own ontologies for
> demographics (a provider's address is not different than the address of a
> supermarket), shouldn't we avoid special handling for the likes of
> "observe", "find", "act" and leave each domain concentrate on its
> particular observations, findings et al? That is, SNOMED gets to be
> health-special but what here is called the "extensional model", that is so
> general (again, maybe I'm missing something), doesn't that belong with FOAF
> et al?
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:43 PM, David Booth <*david@dbooth.org*<david@dbooth.org>>
> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 15:11 -0700, *Peter.Hendler@kp.org*<Peter.Hendler@kp.org>wrote:
> > [ . . . ]  Can you use RDF in a closed world way when ever you want,
> > or is it only safe when the model you're dealing with, like FHIR,
> > really is known to be closed world?
> >
> I think so, provided that you understand that you are making the closed
> world assumption, i.e., that your results reflect only what you
> *currently* know.
>
> Almost every application makes the closed world assumption at some
> point.
>
>
> --
> David Booth, Ph.D.*
> **http://dbooth.org/* <http://dbooth.org/>
>
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 16:34:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:01:13 GMT